Comments

So what's the problem............. all photography is biased towards one's own interpretation of the subject matter.............. just because someone is more gifted than you are doesn't mean you have to attack them. I find the work quite beautiful and inspirational......... it's obvious it's a manip. Who cares if you are insulted.......... you have a problem.

I think people are misunderstanding which ethics are important here. The treatment of the animals - while important - is a red herring. The real ethical issue is of deceiving viewers by making up stories, telling them that these fabricated pictures are journalistic in nature. Nordin used these tricks to become more popular, allowing these stories to remain in the popular press for years before saying anything.

Now that he's published a preponderance of similar images - too many to be coincidental and naturally occurring - he's got a new story. We can only presume that his "new truth" is in fact half-truths.

In real life (outside the Internet sphere), you could be brought to court for those accusations. If you couldn't prove what you said (those links can't be considered as proofs, even remotely), you would risk to be charged for defamation.

Defamation is much more unethical than all the things that you accuse M. Seruyan.

Make an attack on the moral integrity of a person is a more serious offense than manipulating insects or telling stories.

My advice is to stop this inquisition and present your appologies to M. Seruyan.

"Defamation is much more unethical than all the things that you accuse M. Seruyan"

Defamation is a false statement that causes reputational damage. DStudio already provided the evidence of fakery (i.e. compositing a snail onto the floating seed) in a post below.

"Make an attack on the moral integrity of a person is a more serious offense than manipulating insects or telling stories."

Again, it's only an offense if it is unwarranted. But looking at Seruyan's past interviews, it's clear that he has fabricated stories about how he happened to come across such wonderful scenes by happenstance.

Pixnat2, I encourage you to read Dstudio's claim more carefully. He has (in another post) provided links wherein Seruyan's previous explanation conflicts with his current one. Providing this information negates any potential defamation on Dstudio's part.

Listen, I don't think such an inconsistency completely invalidates Seruyan's work. His images are handsome and no doubt deliver satisfaction to his audience. But, unfortunate as it is, evidence strongly suggests the inconsistency of his words. For an artist, it is entirely reasonable that this be pointed out. And the party who does this should not be criticized. I do somewhat feel for Seruyan in that his initial claims are quite consistent with others in this ilk of art, but nonetheless, he bares responsibility for negative fallout, no one else.

Spot on, you addressed all the issues that I was going to respond to Pixnat2 with. It doesn't matter what Seruyan is saying now; the fact that he won't admit to fabricating his stories in the past is what many people are bothered with.

"Anyway, did you nerver made mistakes, M. Kage?"

That's an irrelevant argument. Should a thief receive less of a sentence if the person charging him had also stole before?

Before argumenting further, let's look at the context.On one part, there's M. Seruyan. He's been published by Dprerview without asking for it. Some people quickly point that those pictures were not 100% natural. M Seruyan admited it honestly. The case should have been closed. On the other side, we have an army of inquisitors. They were not satisfied with M. Seruyan honest answer in this site. They wanted to show that M. Seruyan is guilty. They dig in his past to point a possible mistake that he made. They found links about some stories M. Seruyan could have made, and without veryfing the sources or how those stories were made, pointed it out to show that he is guilty.

Guilty of what? Having told some funny stories in the past? Is it a crime? Did M. Seruyan harmed or attack the moral integrity of anybody? I don't see how.

But the inquisitors packed together to destroy the reputation of a man that has made no harm to anybody. They did harm the moral integrity of a man. Who's bad?

For you who doubt of how Nordin treats animal-- All of those animals are safely treated without using any harmful material. This video is an evidence to show that certain staged position of animals can be achieved without necessarily harm them.

Translation : I try to share my secret of how I take photo. I hope there is somebody who willing to translate the audio content of the video. This video is a clip from ANTV show titled "eye of the lens" broadcasted on April 2013. I just recently upload and I will delete this video 48 hours from now. Thanks.

The video clearly show that you can place an insect on a plant then you can move the insect to somewhere with the plants. So you are actually moving the plant with an insect.

I believe it is still a far way to achieve photo #12 that an insect on a frog directly.

on the other hand, I have consult many biologists, they believe the frog in photo #12 is a tree frog that will not stay still when you put it in water. and it is even more unbelievable it stand still when someone put an insect on it.

Please, would you mind telling us if the insect and frog are actually from 2 photos but combined by photoshop? is the water added to the tree frog photos by photoshop? Thanks again.

Interesting that he took the video down... you only hide something...when you have something to hide! -_-I hope he is not one of those so called photographers that puncture and spread the limbs of small animals open so they look funny in the pics and then clone out the string in Photoshop so ppl don't know they tortured the animals! :L

Interesting to see some people to sign up in the DPR only to write in defense of someone or justify attitudes. Some people is very funny and forums also. Many like to make others silly or something similar. If this news were not here and all this noise, many never laid his feet here on DPR. The defenses request is notoriously amazing. People can think what they want, and the photographer can say what he want. Obviously no one will ever know the truth, all are assumptions, but assumptions have strong arguments that it is true that belief in its generality has been arguing. The truth only the photographer can say, or it keeps the doubt, or can prove that people have no reason. What will be unlikely to be able to make a simple and direct way.

Assuming some photographers (group 1) can take photos similar to #12 without torturing/killing any animials.Assuming some photographers (group 2) can take photos similar to #12 by torturing/killing some animals.

In order to avoid copy-cats using the bad methods of group 2 photographers. I sincerely invite the smarter photographers in group 1 to share the secret. Although it will make those photographers lost some tangible benefits, however, the intangible benefits will be irreplaceable. At least, I will try my very best to promote that smart methods are originated by you and that you are the group 1 photographers. I believe most readers here will do the same.

Until then, I will try my best to anti-promote this kind of photos as I believe most copycats will use group 2 methods. I will also invites all readers here to do so.

I will also urge DPR to urge those smarter photographers to share the secrets. Otherwise, I still prefer DPR to remove at least some photos such as #12.

Group 1 to share the secret... you dont even reveal your true identity, why somebody else should bother to share anything with you ? why do you use insane name like "bjhk" ? for what ? so you can say anything without responsibility ?

No matter I use true name or not, I am just no body to most of the people on earth. I believe my true name is only valuable to my family. So it is not critical to judge what my sayings by I am using true name or not.

I can not force other to reveal any secrets if they really exists. However, it is also my freedom to prefer to believe that there may not be any group 1 photographer. And to choose between the less of the two devils, I will still try my best to anti-promote this kind of photos. I will urge other people and DPR to join us.

I use "us" instead or "me" because I believe I am not alone. There should be many "no body" llike me on earth thinking the same,

Especially when the photographers tell different and contradicting stories at different times.

Your argument is too lame, of course real name matter when we discuss the ethic. I also need to know your integrity regarding how you took macro photo. You could be non photographeror you could be the guy from Taiwan who strapped the lizard for photo http://sgmacro.blogspot.com/p/macro-photography-ethics.html. Basically your current name show no accountability at all. None of us here will give serious consideration of your argument.

Why you are so scared of revealing your own identity ? what could be the cost ? you can consider that as a non important issue, but I consider that as an important one. What is the cost of revealing your identity ? why you are so reluctant ?

Not reluctant and Not scare anyway. Just not know how to change to real name after I register the account here. While I use bjhk anywhere since I use internet many many years ago. At that time, some website only allow 8 characters for user id. That is the real reason of using bjhk and I keep using this ID in whatever websites whenever it is possible.

Just if anyone comes to Hong Hong at anytime, you may PM me and I will bring you to taste good food here. I am not afraid of anything, including paying the bill.

Sure, but bugs have a tendency to move. Don't you kind of wonder how he managed to capture a praying mantis riding a toad? I'm not an expert so maybe I'm wrong but i would think that the frog would have moved if someone tried to place a mantis on top of it? Hopefully it was photoshopped.

I know nordin and I know how he created the outstanding mages, I think there is no indication of harm animals, and if you want to know how the process try to find nordin in Indonesia so we know the art process in his art work

This site should take these photos down. Would they post them if they were of people manipulated in such a manner against their will? They are in bad taste. I have no issue with heavy photoshop work but hurting beings to get a picture simply has no place here.

People place bird in cage, ride horse, force buffalo to plow the field etc. People also eat animal. Do you think those animals are willing to be treated like that ? all of the treatment in this macro shot are just too trivial compared with that.

@spoof: I never said that in these macro photo, the animals involved are hurts or abused. Show me what part actually show abusive act to animal ? what kind of hurts are actually happened ? You are farting around now. Yes, accusing without evidence is a fart. Sorry, I found no better words to describe that.

You are right in that one must know the process before judging the art work. But Nordin says below that he carefully placed some of the insects. How you do that without hurting them and knowing you are not hurting them gets very tricky.

You do have a point. I just find it hard to imagine manipulating beings like this without them getting hurt, but the truth is I don't know what he did.

My opinion remains that I personally feel uncomfortable looking at them as I can't help but wonder if beings were harmed here, even if someone was trying not to. I disagree with the manipulation of animals for photos.

Spoff : thank you for your sensible last post. You are right at the fact that hurting animals in order to get a picture is objectionable.But manipulating an animal without hurting it and release it free after that isn't. We humans manipulate animals all the time : dogs, cats, cattle, etc. Biologists, who love nature, kill insects for their taxonomic collections displayed in museum all over the world, put electronic tags on their ears, fins, feet in order to follow their migrations, and so on. Manipulating animals for multiple reasons is done everyday everywhere in the world, that's a part of our life.To conclude, I would like to open a thought : are zoo pictures, that we see on numerous forums taken by people who test their consumer zooms, less objectionable than Nordin's, thinking in terms of animal condition?Have a nice day.

In the natural world, snails don't typically crawl on frogs, or frogs on crocodiles. So the animals were carefully placed in staged positions so as to create a compelling image. As long as the animals are not harmed, I don't see the big deal. Are these trully wild creatures anyway? They could be house pets for all I know. And would that make a difference?

Both show exactly the same seed, but with a different background and with the snail clinging to it in a different position. Obviously this is the result of compositing in Photoshop; it has very little to do with macrophotography.

Fahmi Bhs:Sir, I give you some credit in your defense of Seruyan's work. I do believe that the article cited by many criticizing ethical practices was created under subterfuge. It is to me not problematic that you just created a user account (seemingly) to make your defense of Seruyan. And it makes perfect sense that you would do so if one observes your work - similar. Strangely, it appears one could make a far more compelling argument of ethical abuses in your work. But I will not; I will not make any assumptions as to how your images are produced. Do answer this question: what artistic satisfaction do you get in placing a frog on the snout of a crocodile or snake? This motif of simply placing an animal in a precarious situation seems conceptually facile and formulaic.

b craw - you are aware that a human placing a frog on the snout of a crocodile or a snake is far less likely to occur than the frog getting on the snake or croc on their own? Animals crawl on them all the time.

@b craw : I like the way you put those words, that what they should do. Asking question is far better than accusation and farting around. Regarding the frog and the croc : It was FEEDING time for the croc held in the farm. I Have given long and detail explanation to numerous media already. You can check the photo info in here : http://1x.com/photo/543391/all:user:158302. You dont really expect me to shoot a croc fed with spaghetti right ? This juvenille croc do eats live chicken, frog, fish etc. And when they getting bigger, they will probably put you and me in his diet. That's fact of life. Animals do eat other animals.

@stove23birds on croc are usual in nature. however not frog and croc 。 croc and frog are in different.habitats in nature, although their habitats are near but are separate. Tree frog and croc are living far from each other in nature. Not sure about bugs on croc.

Frog on croc is very special and quite impossible in nature. that is why i as for video that is a real new discovery. Tree frog on croc are impossible without human intervention. One in water and the other on trees in forest.

@bjhk : Do some research first. That is not tree frog on croc. Nobody will feed croc with tree frog. The farmer who farm this croc is not so stupid by using expensive tree frog for the meal of the croc. That frog on croc is actually sold in many pet store as a meal for arowana fish.

I Can't Believe this argument is still going on.Posing animals or humans or still life to entice shock or drama has been done for ever. Some Photojournalists abuse that and win Pulitzer prices over images of death, sorrow and pain. People still buy that stuff. So what is wrong with a few posed insects and frogs to create actual art?

It's because they are living beings that some believe are not here for our entertainment. They serve a purpose in nature,and I have empathy for the challenges they face to survive. It's a challenge to get great captures without manipulating them in a unnatural manner. I really appreciate photographers that do that. These shots don't interest me one bit.

Thank you for the comments, whether in form of appreciation or critics, which both are highly appreciated. I can clarify that none of the insects in my pictures are tortured nor killed to pose. No glue nor wire used. Most of the pose are natural pose of the insect/animal. I did carefully move the position of insect in some pictures to specific staged place such as leaves or water shallow surface or grass. The backgrounds are taken separately using manual lens which has bokeh character, by adding water spray in the back with natural light and compose two pictures in photoshop, by masking method and adjust the color saturation. It's not a controversial form of art in photography in my opinion. It's just a part of my art creation process to present the other side of macro photography.

"I did carefully move the position of insect in some pictures...the backgrounds are taken separately"

You did more than that. As mentioned in a post above, you have photos that are fabricated compositions done in PS. It's one thing to change the background and quite another to stick 2 separate objects from separate photos together (i.e. the snail and the seed).

Your photos are wonderful from an aesthetic perspective, but your insistance on claiming that these digital creations were scenes that you witnessed is what's garnering all this negative feedback against you.

The notion that cruelty to animals may have been used to create stunning pictures of art - not photography - is rubbish. Consider that we kill people in the name of someones god, or political / economical interests. However, to call this beautiful work "macro photography" is deception, is totally unethical.

Mr. Seruyan should have insisted that at publication of his work the method of his art was explained and understood. Not doing so - perhaps he has done it ? - he gets credit not warranted. Never the less, the product of his imagination, and PP craft, is astonishing.

I find the unusual use of backgrounds a bit distracting, especially combined with the occasional main subject lacking contrast and sometimes even looking out of focus. #4 and #10 are okay, but I can't see a single one that I'd want to have on my wall or that I'd give more than a passing glance if I saw it somewhere else.

I like some of the ones in the 500px gallery better than the ones presented here.

I think there would have been less negative comments had the title been "macro creations". Personally I find most of them to be very entertaining. My personal favorite is the damselfly carrying the seed pod, or perhaps the damselfly is catching a ride.

I initially defended this work not because I found it engaging personally but in acknowledgement of the diversity of potential audiences. Assuming it to be largely a product of digital compositing, I thought perhaps children or others might find the imagery interesting. Of course, it is a sugary, perhaps burlesque, allegorizing of nature - but such is the stuff of motivational posters, etc.

Now, although I cannot match the level of moral contempt of some, I do feel the need to retract support of this material based on information (links) provided by others. I will not feign an alliegence to "natural photography"; I have no such conflict. I do, however, find manipulations of live animals (or dead ones) in service of creating touching or humorous vignettes to be, on the whole, sad.

The way ppl reacts does tells me,this is art.If all of us will say the same,it will be just some boring,non staged,real nature photos.What we need to see here,is the vision of the photographer,who used some insects and some other animals as models (probably unpaid) to create images.I have never read a word from him saying this is documentary type nature photography.Ya all moaning here,but can any of this moaners recreate the same level?

Suppose someone publishes a dozen of images of, well, feces, with beautiful bokeh, colorful flies, and whatnot. Then "ppl reacts". Then you'll draw the same conclusion of it being art and "ppl" being ignorant?

vadims,you have to see art as a creative process.The more controversial is the outcome of this process,the more ppl will argue.I am not talking about ignorance,i am talking about opinions,a lot of opinions from this community.For me that pretty much describes art.To answer the second part of your comment,i have a huge print of an image of Blood and human Semen mixed and photographed with a microscope.As an image it is outstanding with lovely reds and yellows.You can see we are not all the same in the world,so our standards must be different too.

Sir,the word ETHICS is giving me goosebumps.We are photographers,so what exactly ETHICS does mean to us?Do you ever turned on the light at home?Did you put concrete over soil to build a house?Are your street covered with tarmac?Is your cloths made by under 12 y.o.Asian kids?Did you ever travel on a plane,car,bus,train?Do you drink soda from plastic bottle?Did you dispose your whatever?And the list goes on,SO,can you tell me about that ETHICS of yours?

To all shocked people : did you ever smashed a bug just because it was in your house?If yes, then you're HypocritsIf no, congratulations, you have true respect for insects and have the right to be schoked.

Simply stating it's not a valid argument does not, in fact, invalidate the argument.

Instantly killing something with no pain is not the same as superglueing it to wires for the sake of "art".

Your argument is based around the fallacy of false equivalence in this situation. Simply put, one unrelated activity does not justify a completely different activity but you are stating that it does. You are wrong. Sorry.

There's nothing to justify.I just pointed out the hypocrisy of some do-gooders : shocked by a picture were an insect was just displaced (no proof or evidence it was killed), but not disturbed by all insect's killings they made in their lives.

b craw : I understand you find it sad. Actually, I do find the pictures in the Singaporean blog sad and not funny. But if you think further than your raw feelings, you'll find that there's a lot of much worse human activities - considered politically correct! - that harms insects and animals much more than those couple of photographers : cattle feedlots, insustrial fishing, industrial agriculture with pesticides and insecticides, etc. Those activities are massively harmful for nature, animals and human health. So if you're concerned about animal condition, there are much more important subjects to fight for than those two or three indonesian photographers, which only manipulate 0,00000000000000000000000000001 % of the insects biomass (and probably don't kill even them).

Pixnat2: I earn a living by evaluating the merits and practices of photography, not environmental policy or individuals' behaviors outside of photography.

You might wish to note that I do not hold the same level of moral contempt for the protographic practices employed as others do; I stated that quite clearly. I am also not going as far as saying that this work should be removed. The sadness I describe is based largely on envisioning such physically manipulative techniques and the disconnect between this and the seemingly charming effect on those that like these images. Sad seems my best description of this perception; particularly to produce only shortly enjoyed visual confections - certainly not art of any portent beyond this.

b craw :And I earn a living making environmental evaluations. So it makes me sad to see people getting shocked by someting that means nothing to Nature preservation, while being OK with a wasteful and polluting lifestyle and society.I can understand it makes you sad. Personally, I'm much more saddened by war, homeless and poverty pictures. To each his own.

Pixnat2:I have clearly stated in two posts that I am not particularly outraged by this. You are simply choosing not to address my argument. Perhaps it has something to do with you misunderstanding my usage of the term "sad". I propose a substitution - "pathetic".

b craw : true, your reasoning isn't triggered by jealousy or hypocrisy like other posters. You find those images sad or pathetic? This is the realm of your personal emotions. I really respect that and told you that I understand your feelings.The problem with personal emotions is that they are...personal. That's why I suggested you to think further than your raw personal emotions and put those pictures in the largest context of animal condition, which is the main subject of most critics.But speaking about emotions (may it be joy or sadness) transmitted by an image : isn't it one of the goal of photography? At least those pictures opened a debate, in that sense they have their own merits :-)Have a nice day.

Pixnat2:Let me just add that I'm not shocked by these images. I do however think that the viewers have a right to know the possible methods being used to create them. Then it's up to the viewers to decide how they feel about it.

Also, what makes you think that the people that are shocked with these images are "OK with a wasteful and polluting lifestyle and society."Can't they be both? My guess is that they are.

mansod :The debate arose when somebody linked the blog describing some methods used for this type of images. Those are questionable. But the images from Nordin Seruyan presented here in dpreview are not of this type. As in every practice, there's a limit not to cross, ethically. I don't think the images in Dpreview crossed that line. But the images in the blog maby went too far. Nordin's images have a certain taste, kitsch, but kitsch is really appreciated in Asia. You made a point : people can be shocked about both. If they are and, which is the most important, act accordingly, they're not hypocrits. So it's worth to look at one's own deeds before accusing others, that what I meant. Somebody who eats meat produced in cattle feedlots should stop it before being outraged by displacing some insects to make a picture, for example. Cows spending their life in feedlots suffer much more than a displaced insect for a pic. Let's be coherent.

mansodSure, Nordin had probably made some mistakes, as we all do! But pointing a blog with discutable methods doesn't prove that Nordin's images linked in Dpreview are unethical.I took his defense too, because the accusations posted by some posters follow the same process as a "Witch Hunt" : people stating with authority that Nordin is guilty, without real proofs. This kind of Internet Inquisition is frightening, and saddens me much more than the blog's pictures.Anyway, I'm really glad that we're in agreement, thanks!Have a great day!

So as not to waste time, let me just say that the inclusion of these photographs on the DPR site is an insult - a slap in the face - to every serious nature photographer, whether a novice, amateur or pro.

This style of these images is horribly cliched and is only impressive to people with no knowledge of macro photography. No surprise that DPR's editors were fooled though, they think that macro and still life are the same thing.

The links and clarifications provided in this thread provide ample evidence that these wild animals have been removed from their habitat (which in most countries is illegal) and that they have been extensively manipulated into unnatural poses, so much that many of us here, and me included, have serious doubts that they survived the photo shoot. Especially given the nonsensical explanation of the photographer. You may say it's just a frog with a mantis on its head, or a snail crawling over a toad, but there are people who seriously object to the mistreatment of animals. How would you feel about a picture of a lion with a gazelle taking a nap on its back? Would you consider it "artistic genius"? Such practices should be frowned upon (at least) and not praised like they are here by DPR.

Wild animals? the pictures above, these are snails, praying mantai, damsel flies, spiders, a moth and one frog. Where is it illegal to remove a snail from "it's habitat"? How is it that you suddenly decide to come to the rescue of such critters that you yourself have purposely at least one of on occasion? And there is no evidence that the artist in question killed the animals - in fact, the photographer has posted in to this thread and you're calling him a liar.

You further seem to miss the point of the linked posts which was to point out the fraud of the photographers in claiming to have found many of these shots naturally. In fact, the photographer from this thread has posted in and stated that many of his backgrounds are manipulated and the critters have been posed.

Manipulating animals to secure interesting images is morally dubious. On top of that the pictures just look really fake, kind of like the "amazing" owl photographs people get by tossing hundreds of live mice out into the snow.

Since when has anyone found a preying mantis sitting on a frog? In the middle of some pond? Did the frog swim the mantis out there? And a mantis paragliding in shot no.8? Can't argue with his his creative vision tho.

To be fair, there's no hard evidence that animals were hurt, but what remains a fact is Seruyan's claim that all of these photos were un-staged chance encounters. I think if he simply admitted to posing these insects and animals there'd be much less backlash (especially if he explained that these were specimens that were already dead and not harmed/killed to get the interesting poses).

the frog in the photos is the kind of frog linving on tree in forest but not in water. it will not be in water in someone's garden if without someone moving it to. and this frog will not stay caims in water. it will not happen naturally

Fake, fake, fake! Do your homework, DPR! By keeping these up, DPR is condoning the torture and cruelty of living things to achieve a photographic end. The means do not justify the end result. Shame on you, DPR!

... Hmm. After reading some of the links below, I must admit that I'm a bit disturbed. Firstly, by the ethics of harming animals to make an image. Secondly, by the ethics of lying about the circumstances in which the photos were taken. I would like to add my voice to that of some other commenters - DPReview, I think you should remove these photos from your site.

Did you see Norin Seruyan's post here? He freely admits that he used Photoshop and placed the animals where he wanted them but did no harm any of them. You've read the links, but you didn't see his reply.

Most photographers could wait for a lifetime and not capture a moment that reaches the perfection of these shots, so for Seruyan to have so many of them really pushes the limits of credulity. I don't mind the fact that these are posed so much as the fact that A) Seruyan doesn't admit to it and B) The likelihood of cruelty to animals to accomplish these. I'd actually be much more comfortable if he told us that he staged these photos using dead insects and frogs that he found.

@Teru Kage : Why it is much more comfortable for you if he use dead frog and insects ? Do you know what the hell you're talking about ? your words imply that all of staged macro photo must use dead animal. Can you present us here with your reason ? or perhaps if you cannot deliver evidence, I would take your best assertion. Show us here why they have to be dead animals.

I'm not sure if there's any cruelty. And I certainly can't argue with the resulting artistic images. And I wouldn't care if he never told me how he captured them. And there's nothing wrong with manipulating a scene to create an image.

But when he makes up a ridiculous story about the circumstances of the capture, I lose all interest in his work. I know you put the frog on top of the snail and it wouldn't bother me if you said so.

There is a similar style of work that involves flowers and grasses etc. There is no pretense there - everyone knows it's all staged. But it looks good and we respect what they do.

Precisely. Even if none of these animals were hurt in any way, Seruyan is still blantantly lying about how he took these photos. From an aesthetic perspective, I find most of his photos beautifully composed, but the possible abuse and obvious lying detracts from any value these photos represent. And the worst part is photos like these have won prestigious awards, which only feeds the negative cycle further.

Before you blow your stack over my reply, I suggest that you go back and read it over again.

I made no implication that all staged macros are dead animals nor did I make any claim that Seruyan used dead animals. My statement was that I would have preferred that the animals were already dead, as I consider that much less cruel than someone purposely killing the animals for the sake of posing them in a photo.

Now my question to you is: do YOU know what the hell you were reading?

Yes, I never participated in this page before. So what ? your blatant lie and accusation about animal abuse is just too idiot ! You never present us here with any convincing evidence, therefore your intellectual responsibility should be questioned.

"your blatant lie and accusation about animal abuse is just too idiot"The word you are looking for is "idiotic". And again, I suggest you go back and read what I've written before you start making accusations. If English isn't your first language, use an online translator to avoid further misinterpretation.

Yes, I know what the hell I was reading,your preference of capturing dead animal rather than kill animal for photo. There is no likelihood of cruelty or killing the animal to take these kind of photos, therefore your preference cannot be justified and gave bias to the implication that this kind of photos must involve dead animal.

I am tired of all these purists who think that Photoshop is the work of the devil.Photography, since it's creation, is fake. It's a fake representation of reality through a complicated set of lenses to capture something that is not what the human eye can see. We don't see in "macro" or can see Bokeh. Those are things created by humans to make photos more 3D and to fake a view of two eyes into one single lens.If you think about it, cameras have only one "eye", one aperture one shutter speed. Cameras can only see one thing either light or dark, what's in between is very limited, so that's why you need another element to fake reality, like a flash. Humans have so much more dynamic range. So there is no way any camera in the world can capture would be Really see.Raw photo without any processing, it's already unreal. Think about it. Photoshop is just another tool. Just like it is to have a fast lens that will create a creamy blurry background. That is just another way of using tools at our disposal, to create an effect. Also, black-and-white photography is another unreal approach to photography. Nobody sees him black-and-white, people that say that black-and-white photos are more artistic are just limited to the knowledge of shooting and color. Which is a lot harder. You have to think of White Ballas, exposure, and Other elements which are "forgiven" in black-and-white.Stop complaining about postprocessing and go out there and shoot something great instead.

It's not about postprocessing. It's about potentially posing the shots then claiming to have captured them in actual mid action, and potentially representing dead animals as live ones. When we see a magic show, we know everything is fake, the performers don't usually claim otherwise and the audience is satisfied with this understanding and applaud their tricks. When they do claim otherwise we expect evidence. When we see photographs it's usually assumed that a "normal" photographic process was used, and if not, any extra tricks are usually known and explained to some degree. Add the concept of cruelty to animals, which is always an emotive issue, photography or not photography, you inevitably get these arguments. None of the techniques you listed has the remotest potential of hurting anything, so are not related to the protests. Some might object to method purism, others could quite rightly object to image fundamentalism.

I hope the animals weren't harmed - it's entirely possible that they weren't. But I completely agree that claiming they weren't posed is putting them low down on my list - like the old Philippino psychic healers who supposedly stuck their hand into one's abdomen and pulled out the tumors.

That's a good photo by Nicolas Reusen.. do you need to say that he also use GLUE, TAPE, WIRE etc ? you see, macro staging is not necessarily happened in Indonesia. It happens in so many place without necessarily harm the animal.

I'm guessing the stag beetle is dead already. I find them dead from time to time - in fact, never seen one alive and kicking. The frog is a pet. This one - not deserving of an award. It's becoming cliche now. Overdone kitsch.

BJHK, you never reply directly to me. Instead of replying, you chose to create new issue. This really show who you are. Coward. The snail and the frog with the human intervention can be met and posed nicely for a photoshoot. That is just a STAGING issue which have nothing to do with animal abuse like glued, sedated, taped etc. Your insane accusation for the usage of harmful material is completely dismissed. You chose to support group of thieves and liar who stole photo for commercial purpose and this group also conducted workshop filled with staged animal, contrary to their own preach and principle regarding the ethic of macrophotography. Obviously, this Malaysian and Singaporean group are willing to do anything for MONEY. They are not only selling workshop, they're also selling away their IDIOTIC ethical principle of macro staging. Here, see it for yourself. https://www.facebook.com/fahmi.bhs/media_set?set=a.850098198353029.1073741831.100000585695112&type=1

@bjhkI am afraid you understood the OPPOSITE of what I said.In other words, maybe the insects and small animals on this series of pictures are "wired and tortured" like the man ?Anyway I am just kiding... I do not know whether the insects and animals were wired and/or tortured. But the picture of the man proves that the photographer sometimes asks (or forces in the case of insects ?) his models to pose for him. Like the following picture, because I have never seen a man playing chess with a cat...:http://1x.com/photo/47690/latest:user:84375And if you look at the cat carefully, you can see it is holding its paw against its head like the man. Because it is thinking very hard too...